Hello Andrew again,

> This what is in current 3GPP specifications, is not 
> necessarily the "right thing".


I think that what is in the 3GPP specs is the problem of 3GPP. Not us. Anyways, I 
rather would like to think that what 3GPP has is rather good, and (most important of 
all) it supports IPV6. That's enough for me. 

Cheers,

Jonne.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Delecki Andrew-Y10658 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:11 PM
> To: 'Hesham Soliman (ERA)'; Perkins Charles (IPRG); Karim 
> El-Malki (ERA)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional?
> [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00. txt -> wg last call?]
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Dear Hesham,
> 
> This what is in current 3GPP specifications, is not 
> necessarily the "right thing".
> 
> Recommendation shall include the right network topology and 
> IPv6 mechanism, not deal with system, which is only "half" right.
> 
> Andrew D.
> 
> Motorola 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> To: 'Charles E. Perkins'; Karim El-Malki (ERA)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional?
> [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00. txt -> wg last call?]
> 
> 
> Hi Charlie
> 
> I finally read the thread.
>   
>   > > I agree that it would be good to see some guidelines in an
>   > > informational doc. However I disagree on the title change to
>   > > IPv6 over cellular/3g. That is a different spec which we should
>   > > also work on.
>   > 
>   > It is possible to design "cellular" systems where the
>   > 3GPP/PDP address assignment is completely replaced by
>   > localized, stateless methods.  The way that addresses
>   > are assigned is not related to bandwidth, nor even to
>   > essential authorization issues.  It's an artifact of
>   > near-compatibility with existing 2.5G layouts.  GGSN
>   > does not NECESSARILY need to control this process.
>   > 
>  
> => That's fine, but we have to deal with what *is*
> right now and not what *may come*. 
> There are people that want to roll out systems with
> IPv6 support today, R&D will no doubt improve
> things, but in this draft we need to deal with
> the current specs.
> 
> 
> Hesham
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to